Lawrence two guilty

[Marf]

ascayman said:

they'll appeal and win. unfortunatly.

On what basis?

[mgtony]

Gary Dobson already serving a five year prison sentence for other offences, now revealed with reporting restrictions lifted!

[ascayman]

Marf said:

On what basis?

Slender evidence imo comes down to a speck of blood 18years old as far as i can see.

[Marf]

ascayman said:

Marf said:

On what basis?

Slender evidence imo comes down to a speck of blood 18years old as far as i can see.

Suggest you do a bit of reading mate, it comes down to more than just a speck of blood.

[Oakey]

Marf said:

Suggest you do a bit of reading mate, it comes down to more than just a speck of blood.

Okay, a speck of blood, a single hair and some clothing fibre (according to the BBC).

[Gwagon111]

Why did the picture of Stephen Lawrence giving what appeared to be a 'black power salute' get photoshopped so that it looked like he had his arms crossed? Both versions of the photo regularly appeared in the media. It was something that always bothered me about this case.

[Marf]

Oakey said:

Marf said:

Suggest you do a bit of reading mate, it comes down to more than just a speck of blood.

Okay, a speck of blood, a single hair and some clothing fibre (according to the BBC).

Placed in area at time of crime, no alibi, demonstrably racist mindset at time of murder etc.

So yeah, a little more than a speck of blood.

[ascayman]

Marf said:

Suggest you do a bit of reading mate, it comes down to more than just a speck of blood.

it doesnt really, its pretty slender evidence to convict them on.

dont get me wrong i think they are as guilty as hell but i cant see this conviction standing, i hope im wrong.

[Marf]

Fair enough

[al bebak]

Marf said:

Suggest you do a bit of reading mate, it comes down to more than just a speck of blood.

what else proved there guilt then, it wouldnt even be in court without the blood.
it may be a good thing that these pair are now guilty but its a bad day for proven evidence.

[Oakey]

Gwagon111 said:

Why did the picture of Stephen Lawrence giving what appeared to be a 'black power salute' get photoshopped so that it looked like he had his arms crossed? Both versions of the photo regularly appeared in the media. It was something that always bothered me about this case.

Appears to be two different photos if you look at Google images?

[Oakey]

al bebak said:

what else proved there guilt then, it wouldnt even be in court without the blood.
it may be a good thing that these pair are now guilty but its a bad day for proven evidence.

If you read the Mccann thread then certain posters would insist that a bit of blood wasn't enough evidence to convict so I assume Hugo A Gogo, etc will be along sometime soon to defend Dobson and Norris.

[al bebak]

Oakey said:

If you read the Mccann thread then certain posters would insist that a bit of blood wasn't enough evidence to convict so I assume Hugo A Gogo, etc will be along sometime soon to defend Dobson and Norris.

its not about just a speck of blood or a hair its how it got there.
after the millions of pounds spent all that has come to light is a speck of blood and a hair.
i wonder if this type of evidence would be good enough to prove innocence, i think not.

[Eric Mc]

scenario8 said:

Goodness, the more you are now allowed to hear of their backgrounds and families the less likable they become.

They were starting with a fairly low "likeability" rating from the outset.

[Eric Mc]

al bebak said:

its not about just a speck of blood or a hair its how it got there.
after the millions of pounds spent all that has come to light is a speck of blood and a hair.
i wonder if this type of evidence would be good enough to prove innocence, i think not.

In English law, innocence does not have to be proven.

[crankedup]

al bebak said:

what else proved there guilt then, it wouldnt even be in court without the blood.
it may be a good thing that these pair are now guilty but its a bad day for proven evidence.

Makes a change that I agree with other posters, but IIRC guilt is based upon 'balance of probabilities'.
In this case those probabilities are strong enough to convince the Jury to a unanimous verdict of guilt. Thirty years back murderous scum, in the same scenario, could not even been charged perhaps, lets be grateful that forensics have made massive leaps in technology.

[scenario8]

al bebak said:

its not about just a speck of blood or a hair its how it got there.
after the millions of pounds spent all that has come to light is a speck of blood and a hair.
i wonder if this type of evidence would be good enough to prove innocence, i think not.

Perhaps if a tiny proportion of those millions of pounds had been spent more wisely by the POlice in April 1993 these two (and possibly others) would have been convicted on much stronger and more compelling evidence many years ago.

And would likely have been released by now

[al bebak]

Eric Mc said:

In English law, innocence does not have to be proven.

in does if you were already convicted.

[Oakey]

crankedup said:

Makes a change that I agree with other posters, but IIRC guilt is based upon 'balance of probabilities'.
In this case those probabilities are strong enough to convince the Jury to a unanimous verdict of guilt. Thirty years back murderous scum, in the same scenario, could not even been charged perhaps, lets be grateful that forensics have made massive leaps in technology.

Have they?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727743.300...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228442.600...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18825274.300...

[0a]

Such a sad case, I don't feel "joy" today but I hope the family feel like justice has been done. The family sound quite inspiring.